Originally Posted By Bolna However, talking about Europapark and the interview I referenced above reminded me of something else that was mentioned in that interview. Europapark is the theme park connected with Mack Rides. Both are companies owned by the Mack family. The interview I am talking about (<a href="http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article3968035/Der-Europa-Park-Rust-trotzt-der-Krise.html" target="_blank">http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/...ise.html</a> ) was with Roland Mack the head of Europapark. The interview talks about thrill rides and who dares to go on them. Roland Mack is then asked whether there is anything that he wouldn't dare to do and his answer is (said laughingly): "take over Disneyland Paris". When I read that I was really surprised and thought what an absurd answer this was. Perhaps it isn't that absurd?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I don't think the parks would be nearly as profitable for anyone else as they are for Disney. Walt was able to buy all that swampland dirt cheap. Anyone buying the parks today would have to pay the current market value for all that land. That would make it prohibitively expensive for anyone else to own and operate WDW.<<<< It's still DISNEY, though. I'd have to imagine that they'd still do as well as they are doing now, if a new owner kept them up the level of standards they have, even now. Seamless transition to a new owner could be just that, seamless.
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o An IPO would not require any single entity to purchase the division. Blackstone Group had planned an IPO for Merlin Entertainments and does want to eventually go through with spinning off the company.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Maybe the company should take itself private. Turn it into a limited partnership with shares not allowed to be sold on the open market. Limit the executive pay, and mandate a larger percentage dividend. Just a thought<<< If that makes the creative aspects of the parks one for more unique offerings, quality upkeep, and a better guest experience, I'm for that. That's my basis for this entire thread, if anyone is wondering... LOL. If the parks can be made better by this move, I'll support it. ..But if the parks are sold, and anything so much as gets worse than the mess we already have now, I'll be the first person to decry it.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>The long-term vision for P&R is definitely a problem. It will be interesting to see what happens post-Aluani. But they've been talking about/experimenting with local, smaller Disney Parks projects for twenty years with zero success stories.<<< They don't have a long term vision for P&R. They merely want to see that the next quarter has the right amount of profit. ... and then if they can sell, a quick cash grab before they run off to retire.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Bottom line is this, Disney has bloated their budgets. The other point is the taxes in Germany are also much higher than WDW will be paying. And on top of that, a fell breakfast buffet (think Boma quality and quantity) is included in the price of the room. Disney charges as much as they can with the minimal amount of service quality because of the Disney name. It is sick really. Especially as Disney used to be the greatest entertainment company on the face of the planet. No longer.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>>Bottom line is this, Disney has bloated their budgets<<< And you think this is why they want to sell? I'd think it's associated with the risk that's involved in running a theme park...
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I don't see how taking the company private would change anything.<< Well, for one thing they wouldn't have to jump through Wall St's quarterly expectation hoops and instead make decisions that are long term based. The allure of being publicly held is that shares are: 1) Easily traded 2) Can appreciate based on short term results, thus generating a quick profits when they are sold.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 ^^^Thus the corporate culture that exists today. Not just at Disney but everywhere. Throw in the internet where we all think we are traders this last decade, and boom! Expectations are focused on instant money. I think fkurucz is definitely on to something. Problem is, we have no one in this country willing to be accountable for much of anything! If you go private, it's all on you. No easy out.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 "Frankly I think Disney executives do need to take a good look at Six Flags history. Six Flags, Inc. does not fully own the original three parks built by Angus Wynn but they have seriously eroded the goodwill that the Six Flags name did once have. It is a model for how selling off the parks could go completely awry as the new owners seek to expand and Disney looks for more licensing revenue." Amen to that.
Originally Posted By Expo_Seeker40 Pardon while I pick up my brain as just exploded reading this thread. Things that come to mind: Each park operates as a very different brand, with unique ticket prices and packages. Certain less loved attractions i.e. CoP get auctioned off to the highest bidder. Local and Public sponsors begin entering the market in the parks. Price fixing? The parks become more like shopping malls and venues.
Originally Posted By Archimedes Report I don't see how Six Flags is analogous at all. Aren't we talking about the parks being operated by an outside company under the restrictions of a licensing agreement? Spinning off Parks & Resorts as its own entity is something entirely different as well.
Originally Posted By Indigo This thread feels like someone has thrown a pebble into a pond and expects a tidal wave to topple New York City.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<This thread feels like someone has thrown a pebble into a pond and expects a tidal wave to topple New York City. >> What are you suggesting? That this topic lacks legitimacy? And isn't it a bit of a shot (maybe passive aggressive at LP's significance when it comes to Disney news)? Because I'm telling you straight away, that TWDC has explored selling its P&R division or spinning them off and some in the company would like nothing better. FACT. Not hyperbole. Among those in the know in media, it is a poorly kept secret that one of the distinctions Michael Eisner made to the Board when he explained Bob Iger's philosophy with regard to his vision of TWDC was that Iger didn't see the parks and resorts as an essential part of the whole, but as a liability ... and sadly, he isn't the only one. It was one of many reasons why Michael was very tepid toward Iger replacing him. There's another thread here that I just read through that talks about the Four Seasons project and it likely having fallen through (just add it to Flamingo Crossings and what now is called Hyperion Wharf as projects announced back in 2007-08 that are stuck in quicksand at best). While the project hasn't officially been killed (much like FC and HW), here we are about when it should have opened and there are no construction pictures online, no word of anything happening, nothing about any groundbreaking and any info about the project has been removed from the Four Seasons corporate site. Now, if I sit here and say those projects are dead, I'm on pretty safe ground. Some folks seem to have read my posts here in a skimming fashion, and that's not wise. They've largely missed the two most significant points, which AGAIN are that Disney has (and may still be) exploring options for P&R that include an outright sale or an IPO AND that there has been no line of suitors interested in owning these assets that Disney has bled dry over the past 15 years. Nowhere did I say a sale was imminent. Or even likely. It would be akin to trying to sell a McMansion in a FLA gated community since 2008, while asking for a 2005-era price. I do not see it happening. READ THAT AGAIN! BUT ... what should worry fans/guests/cast/stockholders is the fact that it would be reasonable to conclude that Disney's incredibly conservative investment in the parks over the past decade (and lack or any sort of 5-year like plans for development in Anaheim, Orlando, Paris etc ... unlike Tokyo) might make one wonder if Iger and Burbank are simply doing the absolute least they can do until either the market changes or they leave the company and it's no longer their problem. Don't you feel that's something we should all be concerned about? Because if current management is even considering selling (or has), doesn't that bring into question all the cost-cutting and quality drops we've seen?
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>Among those in the know in media, it is a poorly kept secret that one of the distinctions Michael Eisner made to the Board when he explained Bob Iger's philosophy with regard to his vision of TWDC was that Iger didn't see the parks and resorts as an essential part of the whole, but as a liability ...<<< Hold the bus...I thought that Iger was hand picked by Eisner to be his successor. Did I miss the train on that one? If so, wouldn't that mean the Eisner didn't think to highly of the parks either? Clarify that please.
Originally Posted By Indigo "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writing for Sherlock Holmes "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." Sir Isaac Newton restating Occam's Razor I am merely applying Occam's Razor to the hypothesis. There are a number of simpler answers to the actions of TWDC over the last decade than that they are setting the P&R up for a sale to the highest bidder. Now, as you suggest, they may want the market to think they're devaluing the parks as some sort of business strategy, but the simpler answer is that those in charge of TWDC right now really have no experience in P&R operations (and haven't since Eisner took power (really Miller, since he came from a film background)) and long have had no interest in them as an asset provided they continued to be profitable. P&R was left pretty much alone (except for the occasional call from Studios Marketing asking how much this synergy campaign would cost or if they could commander Disneyland for a movie premier) to do what they wanted within the confines of the budget they were given for the year. Additionally, despite the claims that very little money has been spent on P&R, the evidence suggests otherwise. The DLPR has been bailed out multiple times, California Adventure has been built essentially twice, Everest, DVC hotels, Fantasyland Expansion, ESPN WWOS upgrades, Art of Animation Hotel, a much too expensive MILF in Tomorrowland, new monorails at DL, etc. Now you can argue the wisdom of those expenditures, but you can't argue that they weren't spending cash. Blame for the projects that are on hold or never materialized can, for the most part, be placed at the feet of the economy. That is the simplest explanation and it's one I tend to believe until some other evidence comes to light.
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o >>I don't see how Six Flags is analogous at all. Aren't we talking about the parks being operated by an outside company under the restrictions of a licensing agreement?<< Six Flags would be the example of how letting go of your parks and their brand could turn out for the worse. The international Disney and Universal parks (and formerly Universal Orlando Resort) would be an example of how it could work.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 One other thought before it gets lost, but a friend told me that another MAGICal site was reporting that Bob Iger was seen touring DAK with VP Michael Colglazier today. Naturally, that got a load of play on that site (been busy so I have no idea if it's elsewhere, but it's not here and it's not on The BIG BAD OFFICIAL Disney Parks Blog where they love to show execs pretending to care about the things we do). But lovely and talented Chandra Wilson was at MK today! I'm sure many fanbois see this (Bob, not Dr. Bailey) as an affirmation that Bob cares about fixing the yeti and the 68 effects non-functioning in Dinosaur and that he has BIG plans for that park (and all of them). The thing is, I haven't seen one picture of him in said park and haven't heard through my own Spirited grapevine that Bob indeed braved the wretched Florida weather for some quality time in Harambe. Just did a brief online search and found nothing either. It is big news when he visits. Then asked someone who might know Bob's schedule and she said 'to my knowledge, unless there was some last-minute change, he wasn't there' ... which makes you wonder. I can say a lot about the owner of the other site, but he never to my knowledge puts stuff out that is knowingly false. But with Disney under the gun from many directions, not the least of which is a fanboi insurrection at the terrible show quality and upkeep at WDW born and nurtured on his own site, one wonders if this was something planted. I also can't help but wonder where folks like Meg and Erin and Jim 'NEXT GEN' MacPhee might have been ... or even Al Weiss because he is still employed, right? ;-) ... if indeed Bob was there. Doesn't pass my Spirited smell test, but if someone knows/has proof otherwise I'd love to know ... I do recall Bob making a last-minute trip to Beijing and Shanghai in 2006 when another mogul at the Sun Valley summer get-together told him that Disney was about to be finished in China. Maybe Bob's got worries. ... But, if so, you can be sure they aren't about parks and attractions that are falling apart!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<You'd think if there were no chance of the above happening, then they'd flat out say so ... so ... what can we take out of the fact they refuse to do so?>> <<Do you think leaving the possibility on the table is perhaps good for stock prices even if they have no intention of actually doing it?>> You know, I tend to pick on Trippy a lot (although he does tend to deserve it ... I'm kidding, I'm kidding) ... but the above is an excellent point and I've heard the same from some industry voices. So long as no one looks closer, it could indeed help stock prices and just be good for PR purposes -- that Disney has such a tremendous asset out there 'on the table'. It could also help explain why Iger, Rasulo, Staggs have refused to ever simply say 'we'd never do this' or even 'we have no interest in doing so at this time' (which leaves them that little wiggle space)
